In a 14-page letter, Hopkinton through attorney J. Raymond Miyares criticized 61 aspects of the proposed regulations. In particular, the town said the regulations rely on the casino applicants to decide which communities will be designated under the law as "surrounding communities," which gives the town greater status in the review and access to funds to evaluate the development impacts.
Gaming Commission Hears from Area Towns, Casino Applicants
Towns bordering Milford were among those who submitted comments by Friday to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on its proposed process for reviewing resort casino applications.
By Mary MacDonald
May 3, 2013
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Hopkinton and Medway have expressed strong concern that the state is not adequately protecting communities near proposed resort casino sites. The comments, made to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, as part of a public hearing on its proposed process for evaluating resort casino applications, were released Friday.By Mary MacDonald
May 3, 2013
%%%%%%%%%%%%
In addition, state Sen. Karen Spilka, state Rep. Carolyn Dykema and Rep. Jeffrey Roy — whose districts include Holliston, Hopkinton, Ashland, Franklin and Medway — have sent a letter that expresses concern about the communities' access to expertise to evaulate the proposal for Milford, and a commission timeline that could compress the review.
Foxwoods Massachusetts, which is seeking a license for a resort casino near I-495 in Milford, did not submit comments at the public hearing on the proposed Phase 2 regulations, held at three locations in Massachusetts. The regulations include descriptions of the process for applicants to submit their final proposals, and the process for addressing development impacts on host towns and surrounding communities.
Both of the competitors for the resort casino license in the greater Boston region — Wynn Resorts and Suffolk Downs/Ceasars Entertainment — submitted feedback in writing.
In a 14-page letter, Hopkinton through attorney J. Raymond Miyares criticized 61 aspects of the proposed regulations. In particular, the town said the regulations rely on the casino applicants to decide which communities will be designated under the law as "surrounding communities," which gives the town greater status in the review and access to funds to evaulate the development impacts.
"Section 125.01(a) continues to provide that a city or town will qualify as a surrounding community if it is so identifed in [a Phase 2] application," Miyares said. "Hopkinton previously commented that this section should be eliminated because it creates a perverse incentive: to limit the number of cities and towns that are discussed in the ... application. The town is dismayed that the commission kept this incentive in place."
Hopkinton wants all cities and towns within 5 miles of a proposed casino to be automatically designated as surrounding communities.
Medway, through its Board of Selectmen chairman, said the town had reached out to the developer of the Milford casino and received no acknowledgment.
"... Leading us to conclude, as time continues to pass, that the applicant designation avenue is more likely than not being foreclosed upon for us and other prospective surrounding communities in the region," wrote Andrew Espinosa, chairman of the Medway Selectmen.
The regulations do not adequately address the surrounding communities' ability to finance the research and studies that would be required to evaulate the anticipated impact of the casino, Espinosa wrote. And if no money is made available by the developer ahead of its filing the Phase 2 application, the towns' only option would be to finance its own studies.
"The proposed language that would give the Commission latitude to exceed the $50,000 for potential disbursements in Community Disbursements, ... is not helpful to towns that have made no progress in communication with the developer," Espinosa wrote. "And such funds that may be available to prospective surrounding communities 30 days following the execution of a host agreement is still too late for Medway to prepare an acceptable response to the commission concerning impacts."
The so-called Phase 2 applications can be made by developers once they pass an initial state review that looks at their financial backgrounds and business histories, and once they have negotiated a host agreement with the site town. Completed applications have to address 57 elements, and show proof that the community has supported the project in a referendum vote.
The state's background investigations into developers and their financial backers began in late January, and is considered the Phase 1 process.
Under Phase 2 applications, developers need to demonstrate they "have thought broadly and creatively about creating an innovative and unique gaming establishment" that provides a "significant and lasting benefit to the residents of the host community, the surrounding communities, the region and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
Fifty-seven elements have to be addressed by developers, including:
- a copy of the host community agreement, which includes provisions for a community impact fee.
- information demonstrating how the developer will address impact and mitigation concerns.
- a listing of the infrastructure costs of the host town resulting from the construction and operation of a casino, and a statement to commit to a "community mitigation plan."
- proof of a positive vote in the host town in a referendum on the casino.
- a list of the communities, or community, the developer believes to be a "surrouding community."
- information explaining how the applicant will address surrounding community impacts.
- a description and documentation of public outreach efforts made to local communities.
- clear and convincing evidence of financial stability, including tax returns and other reports filed by government agencies and personal accounting check records and ledgers.
http://milford-ma.patch.com/articles/gaming-commission-hears-from-area-towns-casino-applicants-on-proposed-regulations
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment